Keir Starmer backs Lucy Connolly's prison sentence over hate tweet after Southport attack
Sir Keir Starmer has backed the courts over Lucy Connolly's prison sentence, stating that he is 'against incitement of violence to other people'.
The wife of a former Tory councillor was sentenced to 31 months in prison for inciting racial hatred online in the aftermath of the Southport attack last year.
Speaking during Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday (21 May), Sir Keir said that whilst he is 'strongly in favour of free speech', he is staunchly opposed to any incitement of violence against individuals, when asked about Connolly's case by Independent MP Rupert Lowe.
Connolly's Court of Appeal application against her jail term was dismissed yesterday by three judges at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Kemi Badenoch to give speech on the ECHR
Kemi Badenoch is set to use a major speech to declare she is 'increasingly of the view' that the UK should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. The leader of the Conservative Party is expected to set out a plan to launch a commission into whether Britain should quit the treaty. The ECHR was a dividing issue in last year's Conservative leadership election, with Mrs Badenoch's rival Robert Jenrick championing the idea that Britain should pull out. Critics of the treaty want to leave it because it has been used to frustrate attempts to deport migrants from Britain. Mrs Badenoch is expected to say that she is 'increasingly of the view that we will need to leave, because I am yet to see a clear and coherent route to change within our current legal structures'. 'I have always been clear that if our national interest means that we need to leave the ECHR, we will leave,' the Conservative leader will say. She will add: 'But I say that not because of any particular obsession with international law or with our treaty arrangements. I say that because for me, the most important thing is making our country safer, richer and fairer.'
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reform's Richard Tice doubles down on call for burqa ban debate after chairman quits
Reform's deputy leader has doubled down on calls for a debate on whether burqas should be banned in Britain after a furious row over the issue saw the party's chairman quit. Zia Yusuf resigned on Thursday after describing a call from the party's newest MP to ban the burqa as 'dumb'. Speaking as he entered the count for the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse Holyrood by-election, Richard Tice said MPs should 'discuss' a potential ban. 'Let's have a discussion about these things, all these important issues, as opposed to not discussing anything, smearing and labelling,' he said. Pressed on his personal view amid chaotic scenes, Mr Tice said there should be a 'national debate'. And, asked if Mr Yusuf's resignation implied the party was racist, the Boston and Skegness MP said: 'With the greatest of respect, that's nonsense.' It came after the new Runcorn and Helsby MP Sarch Pochin used her first Prime Minister's Questions question to call on Sir Keir to ban burqas 'in the interest of public safety'. She said: 'Given the prime minister's desire to strengthen strategic alignment with our European neighbours, will he, in the interest of public safety, follow the lead of France, Belgium, Denmark and others and ban the burqa?' Sir Keir welcomed Ms Pochin to the Commons, but said 'I am not going to follow her down that line'. A Reform spokesman later clarified that banning burqas was not party policy, sparking calls from the far-right for Mr Farage to adopt the proposals. Later, Mr Yusuf said it was 'dumb for a party to ask the prime minister if they would do something the party itself wouldn't do'. He quit the party on Thursday saying 'I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office'. Asked on Wednesday night about Ms Pochin's comments on the burqa, party leader Nigel Farage also said he would welcome a broader debate about face coverings in public. He told GB News: 'I think this debate actually goes beyond the burqa… I was in Aberdeen Monday, there was a mob there to meet me, an organisation called Antifa, and half of them had complete face coverings on so they would be unidentifiable. 'I don't think face coverings in public places make sense, and I think we do deserve debate about that, which I see the burqa as being a part.' Denying his party was 'in chaos', Mr Tice paid tribute to the outgoing former chairman. 'As Nigel's said, as I've said, we're very sad that Zia has resigned,' he said. 'He's worked incredibly hard, he's been instrumental in driving the party forward. ' One of the reasons that this result could be really close – who knows which way it will go – is because of the success of what Zia has achieved.' He added: 'It's very sad, politics is difficult, it's time-consuming, but he's worked incredibly hard.'
Telegraph
40 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Illegal immigration is turning us into a lockdown society
The mild weather has, we are told, exacerbated the problem of small boats crossing the English Channel. The pledge to 'smash the gangs' is no longer being repeated endlessly by Labour spokespeople (perhaps the recent sunny weather distracted Border Force?) But fear not. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, has a plan. She thinks a gigantic governmental IT project is what is now needed to get a grip on the explosion in immigration. Whenever politicians run out of road in trying to solve a problem, it's never long before the introduction of ID cards rears its ugly head. One might say this is an exercise using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but that would be unfair. The issues at stake tend to be rather bigger than nuts – terrorism, mass uncontrolled immigration, widespread welfare fraud and the like. No, it's more like wildly swinging a sledgehammer in an idiotic attempt to repair a window. The way ID schemes work is to split the population into two cohorts – one which is entitled to something and one which isn't. You want to visit your local GP? You'd better whip out your digital ID card to do so. A police officer doesn't like the cut of your jib and wonders if you should be in the UK at all? You'd be advised to have data on hand to prove your citizenship. Three problems immediately emerge. First, the law-abiding majority are obliged to undertake an ever-increasing number of checks and tests to go about their ordinary lives. Second, it assumes that the people you want to collar are not adept at melting into the black market economy. How many employers are hiring large numbers of illegal immigrants unknowingly and were genuinely just about to get round to making sure they all had the right to work here? None. Third, it relies on the state actually operating a complex IT system successfully. We have surely learnt over recent years that in the vast number of ways the government is able to waste huge tranches of taxpayers' money, botched IT projects are probably top of the list. You can bank on a new digital ID system to break, be littered with errors or both. Ronald Reagan's old dictum – 'there are no easy solutions, but there are simple solutions' – is typically honoured in the breach. The Home Secretary is overreaching for a solution which is difficult and complex but – she is hoping – avoids being especially controversial. Instead, to tackle the immigration disaster, we need to get back to basics. The vast numbers of people coming to our shores are doing so because enforcement is weak, the legal system is soft and the incentives to come here are too great. If you are unwilling or unable to deal with those root causes, there is no database – however magical you may imagine it to be – that will be of much assistance. The reason we have failed to deport many undesirables is not because we are sitting across a desk from them and can't identify who they are or what they are entitled to. Rather it's because our asylum system works at a snail's pace, allows fatuous appeals under human rights legislation, and the package of goodies you receive while you are here is too good to resist. We need to speed up the system so claims take eighteen days (or, ideally, eighteen hours) to process rather than eighteen months. We must ensure that your child's preference for British-made chicken nuggets is not an admissible basis for resisting deportation. We have to find a more robust way of policing the English Channel. None of these are easy to achieve, but they are simple to grasp. Instead, the political elite – this time in the form of Yvette Cooper – prefers to rush down the rabbit hole of believing a flashy computerised system is the answer to our prayers. It probably won't happen. It certainly won't work.
